Swiss Court Denies Victim Status to Belgian Teen Who Rescued Brother in Crans-Montana Bar Fire

Swiss prosecutors have refused to recognize a Belgian teenager as a “direct victim” of the devastating Crans-Montana bar fire that killed 41 people on New Year’s Eve, because he voluntarily re-entered the burning building to rescue his brother. The ruling has sparked outrage in Belgium and raised troubling questions about how the legal system treats acts of heroism in mass casualty events.

The Incident

The fire broke out at Le Constellation bar in the Swiss ski resort of Crans-Montana in the early hours of 1 January 2026, when sparklers attached to champagne bottles ignited acoustic foam ceiling panels. The flames spread with terrifying speed, triggering a flashover that engulfed the basement nightclub within seconds. According to RTBF, 41 people died and 115 others were injured, 83 of them with severe burns.

Two Belgian brothers were among those celebrating the new year inside the bar. One managed to escape the building amid the chaos. When he realized his brother was still trapped inside, he did not hesitate: he ran back into the inferno, found his sibling, and pulled him to safety. He succeeded in saving his brother’s life but sustained second-degree burns in the process.

The Legal Ruling

Four months later, the Valais public prosecutor’s office (Ministère public valaisan) delivered a decision that has left the family in shock. The rescuing brother has been classified as an “indirect victim” rather than a “direct victim” — a distinction with profound consequences for his rights to compensation, participation in criminal proceedings, and access to victim support services.

The prosecutor’s rationale, as reported by 20 Minuten, is that because the teenager voluntarily returned to the burning building, he is considered responsible for his own injuries — a “victim of his own behavior” rather than a direct victim of the fire.

Under Swiss federal victim assistance law (LAVI), direct victims — those who were present at the scene and suffered harm directly from the incident — are entitled to full compensation, can act as civil plaintiffs in criminal proceedings, and receive comprehensive support services. Indirect victims, typically relatives who suffer harm as a consequence of the incident, have significantly more limited rights.

Family’s Lawyer Responds

Loïc Parein, the Belgian lawyer representing the family, described the decision as incomprehensible. “There is no doubt that both brothers were victims in this matter,” Parein told RTL Info. “The fact that this victim status is being questioned causes a second wave of suffering, a shock.”

Parein emphasized that the teenager was not a trained firefighter but an adolescent who was himself at the heart of the disaster. “We are not talking about a firefighter, for whom different principles apply, but about a teenager who was himself at the heart of the event as a victim,” he said.

Broader Implications

Belgian criminal lawyer Olivier Dupont explained the legal mechanics behind the ruling. “The Swiss authorities distinguish between two types of victims: direct victims, those who were present in the bar at the time of the tragedy, and indirect victims, like this young man who, after leaving the bar, voluntarily returned to assist his brother,” Dupont told La Libre Belgique.

Dupont warned that insurance companies could use the same logic to deny compensation entirely, arguing that the young man was “a victim of his own behavior” rather than of the fire.

The case has broader implications. In March 2026, the Swiss Parliament approved a one-time compensation payment of 50,000 Swiss francs per victim or survivor. If the ruling stands, the Belgian teenager could be excluded from this fund as well. The prosecutor is also scrutinizing the status of other indirect victims, including distant relatives of the deceased, raising questions about who qualifies for support in the aftermath of tragedy.

What’s Next

The case is not yet closed. The family’s lawyer is awaiting a formal response from the prosecutor and may appeal the decision. Legal experts say the case could set a significant precedent for how rescuers are classified under Swiss law in future disaster cases, and there are questions about whether the Belgian government will intervene on behalf of its citizen.

For now, a teenager who risked his life to save his brother faces the prospect of being punished for his bravery — a legal paradox that his lawyer calls “incomprehensible.”